Surrendering your weapon

[Titanium_Frost]

Any time I have had an issue with a LEO taking my gun, they have alwyas taken out the CLIP and place both the gun and clip on my trunk and would tell me not to get it until they are gone. This has always been city police in Muncie.

Garand or Mauser?

 

[camcdonnel]

Garand or Mauser?

I forgot, people are anal about clips and mags...oops

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I forgot, people are anal about clips and mags...oops

BTW, if you are interested there is federal statutes, Indiana law and case law that says they can't do that to you without RAS (reasonable articulated suspicion) during a common traffic stop.

 

[camcdonnel]

BTW, if you are interested there is federal statutes, Indiana law and case law that says they can't do that to you without RAS (reasonable articulated suspicion) during a common traffic stop.

I am interested. Everytime, without fail, this has happened. Again, its only been by city cops when I lived in Muncie. Never ISP or county.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

They probably are.

Anyway I have to go mow the grass while there is still daylight but I'll be back.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

This is a great post that has the applicable IC. You also want to be familiar with Terry v. Ohio (Terry stop) you can look it up on wikipedia. Terry is the federal statute.

Then there is Richardson and Washington Indiana case laws that state that once a cop has verified your LTCH then no further inquiry into your firearm is required.

If Terry applies, then they can disarm you.

If they have a reasonable belief that you are dangerous, then they can seize your firearm.

If neither apply, then like I said before, I don't believe they have legal authority.

"Officer Safety" applies to Terry. If Terry doesn't apply then they are overstepping the bounds of authority, IMO, IANAL, etc.

The excuse that they don't know me or my intentions goes both ways. Just last week someone else was arrested here for impersonating an officer and pulling people over.

How do I know you're not that guy? And now you have my gun.

"I don't know if your dangerous or not, I'm just taking precautions" doesn't fly with me. If you don't know, then the following doesn't apply:

IC 35-47-14-3
Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.
(b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.
(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.

IC 35-47-14-1
"Dangerous"
Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.
​

 

[Hayseed_40]

I forgot, people are anal about clips and mags...oops

Yep, the words "anal" and "Titanium Frost" usually go in the same sentence around here.

 

[bluewraith]

Yep, the words "anal" and "Titanium Frost" usually go in the same sentence around here.

That sounds like the name of a new Emo band...

 

[EvilBlackGun]

"Anal" or "Oral" :

There IS a difference, AND a reason for the difference. The difference is easy -- if you are not a marooone.

I forgot, people are anal about clips and mags...oops

 

[Hayseed_40]

That sounds like the name of a new Emo band...

Youre right - I think that is where TF came up with his user name

 

[EvilBlackGun]

One could quickly build a good study guide here ...

... if all of the I.C.s referred to here were noted were properly listed. Might make a good tri-fold for the wallet.

 

[Valvestate]

... if all of the I.C.s referred to here were noted were properly listed. Might make a good tri-fold for the wallet.

Not a bad idea...

Sidenote: If a LEO asks for your firearm, you say you'd prefer not, then he/she asks why, would it be a bad idea to say because I'd rather be shot by yours than by mine?



Yes it's a joke...

 

[kludge]

I don't think it's a joke.

How is the cop supposed to disarm me without handling a loaded gun pointed at my femoral artery?

I'll be dead before the EMT gets in the ambulance.

 

[nemo97]

A question that I have...

Who among the LTCH holders would knowingly purchase a stolen firearm? Logic would dictate that if you have willingly submitted to a thorough background check, then you would not endanger your LTCH status by buying a stolen weapon.

Is cop logic like kid logic?

 

[longbarrel]

A question that I have...

Who among the LTCH holders would knowingly purchase a stolen firearm? Logic would dictate that if you have willingly submitted to a thorough background check, then you would not endanger your LTCH status by buying a stolen weapon.

Is cop logic like kid logic?

something like that

 

[inlineman]

I had an officer in my dads house ask that he remove my weapon from my back pocket while we was discussing a different matter.The other officer that was present with him to speak to me explained that he was just nervous.But had I not complied with their request I think I would have been more nervous.My suggestion is do not offer them that you are armed but if they ask you should definitely comply.

 

[Roadie]

I had an officer in my dads house ask that he remove my weapon from my back pocket while we was discussing a different matter.The other officer that was present with him to speak to me explained that he was just nervous.But had I not complied with their request I think I would have been more nervous.My suggestion is do not offer them that you are armed but if they ask you should definitely comply.

Wait, let me make sure I read that right... you are condoning COMPLYING with a request to disarm yourself, on your dad's own property?

 

[EvilBlackGun]

And WHAT ...

... will they ask for next? Will you comply? How - exactly - were they IN the house anyway ????

Wait, let me make sure I read that right... you are condoning COMPLYING with a request to disarm yourself, on your dad's own property?

 

[Hayseed_40]

A question that I have...

Who among the LTCH holders would knowingly purchase a stolen firearm? Logic would dictate that if you have willingly submitted to a thorough background check, then you would not endanger your LTCH status by buying a stolen weapon.

Is cop logic like kid logic?

Makes sense. You could still have a stolen gun.

 

[Hayseed_40]

Wait, let me make sure I read that right... you are condoning COMPLYING with a request to disarm yourself, on your dad's own property?

Exactly. Especially since he was not there for a firearms related crime.